Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on September 19, 2009, 01:57:10 PM
-
Small-Business Owners Fret Over Large IRS Fines
Wall Street Journal ^ | September 19, 2009 | Laura Sanders
Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:24:00 PM by reaganaut1
Five years ago, car-wash owner Orman Wilson set up a pension plan for himself and six employees. For that, he may owe the IRS a $1.2 million tax penalty.
Mr. Wilson, the owner of 19 coin-operated car washes in Houston, says he relied on four advisers, including a certified public accountant, to set up a plan that received approval from the Internal Revenue Service. Then, in late 2007, the IRS found fault with the plan and assessed it $250,000 -- plus special penalties of $1.2 million.
...
The source of the distress: tax-law changes made by Congress in 2004. At the time, lawmakers were worried that tax shelters, especially from large corporations, were costing the Treasury billions in revenue. To combat it, they imposed enormous fines on taxpayers who failed to tell the IRS of participation in any transaction the agency might consider a tax shelter.
"The fines are not for the shelter itself," says Mr. Brucker, "but merely for failing to file the form disclosing the transaction."
The penalty is $100,000 per offense, per year for individuals and $200,000 for businesses. In order to put teeth into the law, the provisions gave the IRS no leeway in imposing the fines and taxpayers no way to get them reviewed in Tax Court.
As drafted, they hit small businesses particularly hard because their entities of choice, Subchapter S and Limited Liability Companies, can incur both corporate and individual fines for every infraction.
National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, an IRS employee charged with protecting taxpayers' rights, has said the fines "have the effect of bankrupting middle-class families who had no intention of entering into a tax shelter."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
________________________ ___________________
This is why people hate the govt.
-
The source of the distress: tax-law changes made by Congress in 2004.
...who was president in 2004?
The Luke
-
...who was president in 2004?
The Luke
As usual,,,,,,,The Luke laying the smackdown on 333bitchbitchbitch86. ;D
-
Mons Venus....."I was afraid to join the Air Force" so now I make fun of them. Another whininy piece of shit who can't back up his "military record". DD214 shitbag..Unit....somethi ng?
-
As usual,,,,,,,The Luke laying the smackdown on 333bitchbitchbitch86. ;D
Its not about party you idiot.
The govt is simply out of control.
-
I heard Mons Venus was special forces.
That's why he can't tell you.
-
Its not about party you idiot.
The govt is simply out of control.
...which administration:
-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?
I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.
Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?
I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.
We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.
The Luke
-
...which administration:
-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?
I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.
Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?
I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.
We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.
The Luke
The Luke = Laying the Smackdown ;D
-
...which administration:
-removed Habeus Corpus?
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?
Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?
The Luke
hey look everybody the foreigner wants to come play american politics ;)
actually luke your list is full of half truths
-habeus corpus is meant for civilians or uniformed military combantants not terrorists
-what executive powers did bush grant that were dictator like?
-the president can order military action without congress approval he simply cant declare war without it.
-obama is doing the same thing with holding ppl without trial...
-lol bush didnt steal anything they recounted numerous times and he came out ahead everytime
-the geneva convention again applies to uniformed soldiers not terrorists
-Katrina was a shit hole of a situation that couldnt be predicted the very fact you politicize a tragedy like that without even being in country says enough. I live in Houston luke you know where alot of these ppl were bused to and given federal aid and support?
-Obama is passing legislation that is even surpassing the patriot act...
-There were plenty or reasons and plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises the blame bush tatic is oversimplifying a very complicated situation...
also 3333 and many others including myself have been against many actions bush took...
I myself thought the patriot act was bs and Iraq was obviously a mistake...
but the question still remains why does a australian care about american politics?
-
-habeus corpus is meant for civilians or uniformed military combantants not terrorists
...not true.
No one can legally be deemed either a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" unless the executive branch declare them to be so. Till then Habeus Corpus applies.
Only the president or someone acting upon orders of the president can decide whether Habeus Corpus applies, by declaring the person involved either an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".
Comparing civilians and uniformed military combatants to "enemy combatants/terrorists" is misleading, as "enemy combatants/terrorists" have NO legal standing once declared to be so. Civilians and uniformed combatants are people... prisoners declared "enemy combatants/terrorists" are not legally people under American law: evidence by the fact that American citizens (interrogators) can and do deny them ANY and ALL of their human rights with impunity from prosecution.
Hence, the President of the United States becomes the final and sole arbiter of the human/non-human status of anyone in the world (technically this is legally correct as America retains the right to forcefully repatriate anyone whom they decide should be repatriated).
Read the Patriot Act.
-what executive powers did bush grant that were dictator like?
...the right to decide the human/non-human status of any person on this planet. The right to deny people their human rights by Presidential order. See above point.
The power to torture detainees by name, an unlimited amount of times.
The power to deny people their privacy.
The power to read emails (and all forms of correspondence) without a legal warrant.
The power to order wiretaps without a warrant.
The power of unlawful search and seizure, again without warrant.
The power to hold people without trial.
The power to forcefully repatriate, both to the US and its torture partner countries.
The power to decide, as sole arbiter: dictatorially, when the Geneva Convention applies.
The power to suspend Congress and the Senate and the Judiciary (your three branches of government) in times of national emergency... this has been a presidential power for some time, but Bush changed it so that the president alone decides what constitutes a "state of emergency", the president alone decides when the Constitution should be suspended, the president alone decides how long such a state of totalitarian dictatorship should last, and can prolong it indefinitely.
What other power does a dictator need?
Granted, Hitler also had the power of summary execution (not legally, but practiced)... Bush never gave himself that power... he stopped with the power to torture anybody he chose every day for the rest of their lives, just on his unappealable order.
-the president can order military action without congress approval he simply cant declare war without it.
...I never argued otherwise.
Did Congress "approve" a formal declaration of war on "terror"?
If not, the Iraqi and Afghan invasions are technically illegal.
-obama is doing the same thing with holding ppl without trial...
...agreed.
They should all be facing charges for high crimes against humanity in the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague (Netherlands): Bush; Cheney; Rumsfeld; Tony Blair; Gordon Brown; even Obama.
-lol bush didnt steal anything they recounted numerous times and he came out ahead everytime
...isn't there a very detailed non-partisan report made by international observers that found otherwise?
From what I can tell, Bush has never been properly elected: voter fraud and election tampering by the Supreme Court in 2000, and widespread voter fraud in 2004.
-the geneva convention again applies to uniformed soldiers not terrorists
...again, read my first point: then read the Patriot Act.
Besides, most of those who were raped; abused; mutilated and tortured in Gitmo, were taken prisoner while wearing uniforms... Iraqi National Guard and Taliban fighters.
-Katrina was a shit hole of a situation that couldnt be predicted the very fact you politicize a tragedy like that without even being in country says enough. I live in Houston luke you know where alot of these ppl were bused to and given federal aid and support?
...so there was no shockingly poor response to this crisis?
Then why did Bush admit that both he and the administration failed the people of New Orleans (farewell interview with Larry King)? Why did he ask for forgiveness? Why did he declare it the biggest failing of his presidency?
Are you actually arguing that George Bush DOES care about black people.
-Obama is passing legislation that is even surpassing the patriot act...
...agreed.
He should face charges in the Hague.
On the plus side, he has put a stop to the abuse; beatings; rape; mutilation and torture at Gitmo.
-There were plenty or reasons and plenty of blame to go around for the financial crises the blame bush tatic is oversimplifying a very complicated situation...
...what exactly did Bush do to prevent this financial Armageddon? Finish reading "My Pet Goat"?
also 3333 and many others including myself have been against many actions bush took...
...yes, your condemnation has been deafening.
Funny, I don't remember any of them putting down the giant "USA #1!" foam finger long enough to do the decent thing and become conscientious objectors.
It's one thing to be complicit in such abhorrent behaviour and policies with your vote, but some of these guys have actually gone to war for this lunatic! Killing poor people in the worlds poorest countries, for George Dubya Bush... but then again, they are brown people (just like Obama).
Shameful.
I myself thought the patriot act was bs and Iraq was obviously a mistake...
Did you, or did you not, vote for the dumbest president America has ever seen?
Did you vote for the dumbest president America has ever had a second time?
Did you then vote for a pro-war nutjob running with the dumbest vice-presidential candidate America has ever seen?
Maybe you could answer these questions before we consider your learned opinion on the Iraq invasion?
You have already proven yourself shockingly misinformed with your supposed corrections of my post. What credibility can you have in this discussion?
The Luke
-
...not true.
No one can legally be deemed either a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" unless the executive branch declare them to be so. Till then Habeus Corpus applies.
Only the president or someone acting upon orders of the president can decide whether Habeus Corpus applies, by declaring the person involved either an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist".
Comparing civilians and uniformed military combatants to "enemy combatants/terrorists" is misleading, as "enemy combatants/terrorists" have NO legal standing once declared to be so. Civilians and uniformed combatants are people... prisoners declared "enemy combatants/terrorists" are not legally people under American law: evidence by the fact that American citizens (interrogators) can and do deny them ANY and ALL of their human rights with impunity from prosecution.
Hence, the President of the United States becomes the final and sole arbiter of the human/non-human status of anyone in the world (technically this is legally correct as America retains the right to forcefully repatriate anyone whom they decide should be repatriated).
Read the Patriot Act.
The Luke
Actually you're wrong, and unsurprisingly misinformed...as usual. The Supreme Court put this issue to rest last year in Boumediene v. Bush where it ruled habeas corpus applied to the Gitmo detainees as well as anybody else designated an "Enemy Combatant". Since then, several have been freed via writs of habeas corpus.
No, the president or his designee does not decide if, when, and to whom habeas corpus applies. That is a function of the court, and the SC put the issue to rest.
If you're going to give us crap about our laws, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.
-
Actually you're wrong, and unsurprisingly misinformed...as usual. The Supreme Court put this issue to rest last year in Boumediene v. Bush where it ruled habeas corpus applied to the Gitmo detainees as well as anybody else designated an "Enemy Combatant". Since then, several have been freed via writs of habeas corpus.
No, the president or his designee does not decide if, when, and to whom habeas corpus applies. That is a function of the court, and the SC put the issue to rest.
...eight years late?
I know this is changing now, Ireland has even agreed to accept some of these detainees freed via these Habeus Corpus writs.
The court may decide to whom Habeus Corpus applies NOW, but the detainees had no access to the courts for many, many years... no representation, no appeals, no legal motions allowed.
Guess I should have been more precise with my tenses, I was referring to the dictatorial powers Bush conferred upon himself.
The Luke
-
...which administration:
-removed Habeus Corpus?
For who? American Citizens? Terrorists? Enemy combatants? Members of a foreign military under uniform? The Geneva Convention was never intended to cover terrorists and was meant to apply to people fighting in uniform for a recogognized nation state.
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
Which are what? From what i can tell, the congress signed off on those powers. BTW - if 9/11 did not qualifiy as an "emergency" I dont know what does.
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
What is your support for this?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
Who should do this? Who did it prior to the Bush admn?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
I never agreed with this, but Obama is carrying forward with this policy as well.
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
More liberal CT that are baseless. Acorn and other groups committed equal violations that if anything offset anything that happened with 2004 election.
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
More nonsense. Gitmo is a concentration camp? Please. I have seen housing projects five minutes from me where people are subjected to worse conditions.
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
You mean rendition? I thought we did the torturing? Why would we need to send them elsewhere is we did the torturing?
BTW - Obama admn is continuing the rendition policy.
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
If that is true thats horrible.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
Show me where GWB had these ties.
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
I have no problem with this, never did, never will, especially under a ticking time bomb scenario. We are not fighting uniformed armies on a battlefield, but ruthless savages who kill children, women, dogs, etc, and themselves.
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
Most of the blame goes to Ray Nagin and Blanco. The idiots in NO were warned for three days to leave and chose to stay.
Nagin had 700 school buses that he could have used but didnt because they could not find Union bus drivers to drive the busses. Blanco also was a miserable failure.
Bush is not to blame for Katrina, although I do blame his admn for the FEMA trailers and gift cards they gave out.
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
The congress signed off on that and explicitly gave him those powers.
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
If you are referring to the repeal of Glass Steagal, it was Bill Clinton who signed that at the urging of Phil Graham and Robert Rubin.
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?
Show me where Greenspan bowed to pressure to do this?
I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.
we have only been in this admn for less than a year and Obama has already adopted most of the worst of GWB's worst policies and has attempted to enact his own massive overreach of govt power via cap & trade, health care, czars, etc.
Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?
The thought at the time was that the mujahadeen could check the soviets, which they did. Unfortunately, they calculated wrong in that there would not be blowback.
I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.
"Well-meaning social policy" usually means more dependence on govt, which I am not ok with. Maybe you are, and for that you should stay wherever you are.
BTW - I was thrown off FR for bashing Bush and have always expressed major disagreements with what he did.
We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.
Please, Obama is a joke, a liar, a fraud, and is half white. He cant get a coherent thought out without his teleprompter.
What I am "fightened of" is the massive overreach of govt into my finances, choices, etc, which Obama's policies all are attempting to do. They are not "well-meaning" as you say, but attempts to control and make people dependent on govt for everything.
-
...which administration:
-removed Habeus Corpus?
For who? American Citizens? Terrorists? Enemy combatants? Members of a foreign military under uniform? The Geneva Convention was never intended to cover terrorists and was meant to apply to people fighting in uniform for a recogognized nation state.
-gave dictatorial powers to the executive branch during a declared "emergency"?
Which are what? From what i can tell, the congress signed off on those powers. BTW - if 9/11 did not qualifiy as an "emergency" I dont know what does.
-gave the executive branch sole authority to both define and declare "emergency"?
What is your support for this?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to declare anyone (even citizens) a "terrorist"?
Who should do this? Who did it prior to the Bush admn?
-gave the executive branch sole authority to inter "terrorists" for indefinite periods without trial or charge?
I never agreed with this, but Obama is carrying forward with this policy as well.
-stole the 2004 election by means of large scale voter fraud?
More liberal CT that are baseless. Acorn and other groups committed equal violations that if anything offset anything that happened with 2004 election.
-overrode the Geneva Convention in order to set up a torture centre and concentration camp?
More nonsense. Gitmo is a concentration camp? Please. I have seen housing projects five minutes from me where people are subjected to worse conditions.
-actively delivered suspects to foreign governments to be tortured?
You mean rendition? I thought we did the torturing? Why would we need to send them elsewhere is we did the torturing?
BTW - Obama admn is continuing the rendition policy.
-tortured suspects in order to garner "proof" of a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? Which didn't exist.
If that is true thats horrible.
-actually has long time business links to the Bin Laden family itself?
Show me where GWB had these ties.
-redefined waterboarding as "enhanced interrogation" despite the fact that Japanese (and Vietnamese) soldiers who had waterboarded American soldiers were prosecuted for war crimes by the US?
I have no problem with this, never did, never will, especially under a ticking time bomb scenario. We are not fighting uniformed armies on a battlefield, but ruthless savages who kill children, women, dogs, etc, and themselves.
-miserably failed the people of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
Most of the blame goes to Ray Nagin and Blanco. The idiots in NO were warned for three days to leave and chose to stay.
Nagin had 700 school buses that he could have used but didnt because they could not find Union bus drivers to drive the busses. Blanco also was a miserable failure.
Bush is not to blame for Katrina, although I do blame his admn for the FEMA trailers and gift cards they gave out.
-passed sweeping legislation to enlarge government power? (Patriot Act)
The congress signed off on that and explicitly gave him those powers.
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
If you are referring to the repeal of Glass Steagal, it was Bill Clinton who signed that at the urging of Phil Graham and Robert Rubin.
-pressured the Fed to lower interest rates in the wake of 9/11 in order to prevent a recession, which in turn caused the artificial fiscal environment that collapsed the world banking system?
Show me where Greenspan bowed to pressure to do this?
I'm pretty much sure none of this egregious behaviour happened on Obama's watch.
we have only been in this admn for less than a year and Obama has already adopted most of the worst of GWB's worst policies and has attempted to enact his own massive overreach of govt power via cap & trade, health care, czars, etc.
Even if you don't want to answer any of the above questions, as a "patriot", shouldn't you at least ask yourself, which administration trained and armed Osama Bin Laden?
The thought at the time was that the mujahadeen could check the soviets, which they did. Unfortunately, they calculated wrong in that there would not be blowback.
I don't expect an answer 333386, my point is that you sound like a fool when you criticise well-meaning social policies instituted by Democrats while remaining blinkered against the horrific transgressions of the Bible Squad.
"Well-meaning social policy" usually means more dependence on govt, which I am not ok with. Maybe you are, and for that you should stay wherever you are.
BTW - I was thrown off FR for bashing Bush and have always expressed major disagreements with what he did.
We get it you're frightened by Chocolate Jesus.
Please, Obama is a joke, a liar, a fraud, and is half white. He cant get a coherent thought out without his teleprompter.
What I am "fightened of" is the massive overreach of govt into my finances, choices, etc, which Obama's policies all are attempting to do. They are not "well-meaning" as you say, but attempts to control and make people dependent on govt for everything.
The Luke
Hahahaaaaaaaaaa The Luke destroying 3333bitchbitchbitch86!! ;D
-
What the heck are you talking about?
I went line by line and refuted almost everything in his post. Go back to bed.
-
What the heck are you talking about?
I went line by line and refuted almost everything in his post. Go back to bed.
...citing your misconceptions regarding a point does not constitute refutation.
It merely demonstrates poor reading comprehension, or intellectual dishonesty. look at the amount of points I made that you didn't refute but asked for sources on... have you been asleep for the past nine years? Or have you been watching FOX News?
If you want to criticise the Obama administration, I'm right behind you... but blinkered apologist attitudes towards the horrific record of the Bush administration is patently disingenuous.
You didn't refute even one of the points I made. Saying you did, doesn't make it so.
The Luke
-
Look dude...he answered ur stupid post. Ur country was right behind us until u elected a left wing retard. We don't comment on ur crap....nobody here cares.
-
I guess you want to blame Bush for this?
-
Look dude...he answered ur stupid post. Ur country was right behind us until u elected a left wing retard. We don't comment on ur crap....nobody here cares.
...Ireland?
We won't even let American planes refuel here in case they might be flying rendition prisoners.
The Luke
-
Here you go Luke - another point of your utterly destroyed.
________________________ ________________________ ____________
The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
By WILLIAM KAUFMAN
If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."
The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.
But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.
This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:
REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.
NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.
The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.
According to Wikipedia, many economists "have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the 'finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, ' according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ' These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act. ' "
This lust for banking largesse is as wanton among Democrats as Republicans--right up to the current presidential campaign. According to the Phoenix Business Journal,
Obama and McCain . . . have accepted a substantial amount of campaign money from Wall Street bankers, investment and securities firms and their executives during this election cycle.
Investment firms have donated $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain this campaign thus far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Commercial banks have given Obama $2.1 million and McCain $1.9 million. Private equity firms and hedge funds have given Obama $2 million and McCain $1.4 million, according to CFRP.
Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS and heavyweight law firm DLA Piper are among Obama's top contributors. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns with the federal government taking on as much as $30 billion Bear assets as part of the deal. McCain's top donor sources include Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Blank Rome and Greenberg Traurig LLP law firms.
So . . . the next time a mass-media-lulled Democrat ridicules Ralph Nader for arguing that there are few significant differences between the two major parties on the truly important issues, you might refer them to this atrocity, along with all the other ones.
William Kaufman can be reached at kman484@earthlink.net
________________________ ________________________ _____
Are you going to blame Bush for this Luke?
-
Oh never mind.....I thought u were an Aussie....u matter even less. My moms' from Dublin and I've been there a few times...I refueled there in both 2003 and 2007.
-
...Ireland has even agreed to accept some of these detainees freed via these Habeus Corpus writs.
The Luke
That's great. I hope Ireland takes more. They can stay over there and fuck your women, leech off your welfare, and have you pay all their medical bills...all the while advocating for Sharia Law.
-
333386,
I know all about the Glass-Steagall Act.
My point was that the Bush Administration watched the global derivatives market grow from 600 trillion to 1.2 quadrillion dollars.
Yet did nothing to reign in any of this excessive speculation.
Clinton had a budgetary surplus... Bush had two off-balance-sheet wars and a chronic deficit.
That's not the time to insist upon lowering interest rates to all-time record-lows further fueling suicidal speculation; double-down on speculation to smooth over a long overdue recession (Dot Com bust); then spend (borrowed) billions giving unneeded tax-cuts to the richest Americans.
Bush oversaw the fastest biggest increase in wealth disparity America has ever seen, that is his economic legacy... national bankruptcy is merely the result of his policies.
The Luke
-
333386,
I know all about the Glass-Steagall Act.
My point was that the Bush Administration watched the global derivatives market grow from 600 trillion to 1.2 quadrillion dollars.
Yet did nothing to reign in any of this excessive speculation.
Clinton had a budgetary surplus... Bush had two off-balance-sheet wars and a chronic deficit.
That's not the time to insist upon lowering interest rates to all-time record-lows further fueling suicidal speculation; double-down on speculation to smooth over a long overdue recession (Dot Com bust); then spend (borrowed) billions giving unneeded tax-cuts to the richest Americans.
Bush oversaw the fastest biggest increase in wealth disparity America has ever seen, that is his economic legacy... national bankruptcy is merely the result of his policies.
The Luke
Once again....The Luke laying the Smackdown on 3333bitchbitchbitch86!! :D
-
Once again....The Luke laying the Smackdown on 3333bitchbitchbitch86!! :D
...I wish you would stop using the term: "Smackdown"
333386 doesn't know he doesn't know... he doesn't arrive at his own conclusions, his opinions are all absorbed by osmosis.
He doesn't think, he regurgitates what he has been told to believe.
That's a military thinking mode.
But personal attacks will only force upon him the option he would prefer: construe query as assault, and opt for dismissal. That way you don't have to consider your opinions, just protect them.
He needs to think for himself, and question what he has accepted without question.
That's why I utilise weaponised patience in these threads, just point out the facts... question their conclusions... point out more facts... question their criticisms... on and on till they attack me personally, (evidence they have lost the argument)... then continue without reprisal.
Already in this thread posters are attacking me for daring to know more about what's going on in America than these Americans do.
That means they're becoming unsettled... maybe even questioning their brainwashing.
The Luke
-
I guess you want to blame Bush for this?
Bush didn't cause katrina nor the piss poor local and state evac and reaction.
Did he do a good job assessing the situation and delivering federal aid? Um, no. "Heckuva job, brownie" when CNN and wlamart could deliver water but the natinoal guard couldn't.
I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day. But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?
-
I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day. But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?
"George Bush doesn't care about black people".
When only Kanye West has the balls to say it out loud, America is in trouble.
The Luke
-
I think it was more about areas of the country that pay more taxes getting a ton of help right away. Poorer areas, they didn't seem to rush to.
I dont think race had much to do with it. Black millionaires had bottled water and bags of ice delivered the next day in Sanibel, FL. White poor people in the french quarter were still thirsty a week later.
-
To paraphrase Jonny Cohrane...the color of race is green.
-
I think it was more about areas of the country that pay more taxes getting a ton of help right away. Poorer areas, they didn't seem to rush to.
I dont think race had much to do with it. Black millionaires had bottled water and bags of ice delivered the next day in Sanibel, FL. White poor people in the french quarter were still thirsty a week later.
Ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?
And Kanye West is an ignorant asshole that doesn't know how the laws of the country work, that gives him the freedom to say stupid shit.
-
Ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act?
Yeah, I'm well aware of that. I'm talking about helping people. in SW FL, there were national guard trucks from city to city, everywhere. Rifles, camo and hummers.
Guarding port charlotte and punta gorda from anyone entering. in ft myers handing out water and ice and directing traffic.
they were very helpful, and we were glad to have them here. I thought they'd be there quick for katrina as well. They weren't. Both were under Bush, I believe.
-
"George Bush doesn't care about black people".
When only Kanye West has the balls to say it out loud, America is in trouble.
The Luke
Thats funny considering GWB appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him.
-
Bush didn't cause katrina nor the piss poor local and state evac and reaction.
Did he do a good job assessing the situation and delivering federal aid? Um, no. "Heckuva job, brownie" when CNN and wlamart could deliver water but the natinoal guard couldn't.
I saw how fast the nat'l guard arrived in south FL to clean up hurricane charley, next day. But those were millionaires, and these folks in Noleans?
thats what I said, i didnot blame bush for the most of it, but for the fema trailers and the $$$ they spent afterwards on bums who used it for hookers and liquor.
-
Thats funny considering GWB appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him.
You know they weren't nearly black enough
-
Luke you give 1/2 truths in all your posts. you blame GWB for everything but refuse to understand or acknowledge that the congress makes the laws not the president.
With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble? To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.
With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.
With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.
With regard to Katrina - your claims are ludicrous. sure Bush screwed up the aftermath with the FEMA trailers and spending cards, etc, but the evacuation is mostly the fault of the black mayor nagin. Does he hate blacks too?
You want to blame bush for everything, fine, but at least be honest about the role the congress played in enabling his actions.
-
Luke you give 1/2 truths in all your posts. you blame GWB for everything but refuse to understand or acknowledge that the congress makes the laws not the president.
With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble? To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.
With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.
With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.
With regard to Katrina - your claims are ludicrous. sure Bush screwed up the aftermath with the FEMA trailers and spending cards, etc, but the evacuation is mostly the fault of the black mayor nagin. Does he hate blacks too?
You want to blame bush for everything, fine, but at least be honest about the role the congress played in enabling his actions.
...I'll give you a chance to delete/edit this post, it's a self-owning par excellence.
Read it again.
The Luke
PS ...if you do delete it, I'll delete my quoting of it. Not out to embarrass anyone.
-
...I'll give you a chance to delete/edit this post, it's a self-owning par excellence.
Read it again.
The Luke
PS ...if you do delete it, I'll delete my quoting of it. Not out to embarrass anyone.
Go ahead. You blamed bush for everything in your post. I am telling you that these matters are more complicated than simply blaming one individual. You ignored the congress' role in much of what you blame Bush for and you me to delete my post?
Give me a break bro.
As far as Bush hating blacks, thats more nonsense. Did he hate blacks in appointing more blacks to his cabinet than any president before him?
-
LUKE - YOU BLAMED GWB FOR THE HOUSING MESS - WHILE IGNORING THIS:
________________________ ________________________ ___________-
Morning Bell: Fannie and Freddie at Core of Housing Crisis
Posted June 10th, 2008 at 9.11am in Enterprise and Free Markets.
Jim Johnson, the man recently chosen by Sen. Barack Obama to search for a VP candidate, is under fire for receiving millions of dollars in below-market loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. chief executive Angelo Mozilo. Private entities like Countrywide are free to give generous loan agreements to whomever they want, so there is nothing technically illegal about what Johnson did. Just like there is nothing technically illegal about the $21 million that the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae paid Johnson for his work as CEO of Fannie in 1998. However, the Wall Street Journal also reports that Johnson personally worked closely with Mozilo to streamline the underwriting process making transactions between Countrywide and Fannie more efficient. That is what should concern the American taxpayer.
Countrywide is the largest loan servicer in the nation. It has been accused by bankruptcy judges of using dubious tactics to issue mortgages to unqualified borrowers, and has been at the center of the nation’s still-unfolding mortgage crisis. In the last three quarters, Countrywide has lost $2.5 billion, and has $6 billion in nonperforming assets. Did Countrywide get into all this financial trouble by itself? No. The federal government was key in enabling Countrywide’s blatantly irresponsible behavior. Fannie Mae is the biggest buyer of Countrywide loans.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not actually lend money to borrowers. Instead, they make their money by purchasing loans, bundling them together and then selling them as mortgaged back securities. Due to their quasi-government status, Freddie and Fannie are exempt from state and local taxes and can borrow money at lower rates than their competitors. With these advantages, Freddie and Fannie have cornered the market on mortgage securitization. Most years, Freddie and Fannie help finance 40% of all U.S. mortgages. In the first quarter of 2008, they handled 80% of the market. If Fannie and Freddie were private entities, they would be a considered a monopoly by Department of Justice anti-trust guidelines.
Fannie and Freddie are neck deep in the subprime industry as well. In 1995 Fannie and Freddie convinced the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to let them get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included risky loans to low-income borrowers. In 2003 Fannie and Freddie bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004 they bought $175 billion — 44% of the subprime market. Now Fannie and Freddie are in the same financial hole as Countrywide. They suffered $9 billion in mortgage-related losses last year and are sitting on another $19 billion in additional losses they have not yet fully acknowledged.
Conservatives have been pushing for fundamental reform of Freddie and Fannie for years. Long before the subprime crisis became apparent, conservatives warned that “their commanding presence exposes U.S. financial markets to excessive risk and instability.” Now Congress is actually considering some common-sense reform, but the good measures are being held hostage as part of a larger housing package that includes a permanent slush fund for corrupt partisan groups like ACORN and a massive bailout of irresponsible lenders like Countrywide. Congress should focus on what is important and necessary: reforming Freddie and Fannie to ensure that future housing problems do not develop into crises that could threaten the stability of the overall financial system or require massive taxpayer-funded bailouts.
________________________ ______________________-
If anyone needs to edit theirs posts, its you.
-
Okay dude... you actually asked for it this time.
Consider if you will the stupidity of your previous post.
Maybe you might appreciate it better if we reversed the order of arguments:
With regard to the patriot act, the congress signed off on that.
With regard to the iraq war, the congress gave him that power and could have taken it back at any time.
...you actually provided not one, but two examples of Bush pushing unpopular legislation through the Congress and Senate only one line AFTER you made the following assertion:
With regard to housing, how can you blame GWB while at the same time ignore the fact that he urged the congress to reign in fannie and freddy who were buying up all these crap mortgages and fueling the housing bubble? To ignore the fact that the congress itself bears a lot of responsiblity for this mess, alon with a lot of other players, is just dishonest on your part.
So which is it?
Bush pushed through unpopular budgets; unpopular legislation; two wars; torture; evisceration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... but he just couldn't address the unprecedented housing bubble because Congress wouldn't let him?
That's plain apologetic reasoning, the very thing I have been accusing you of. You are actually providing examples of your faulty ideologically blinkered arguments to counter the claim that your argument is faulty and ideologically blinkered...? WTF?
Dude you simply don't understand.
Aside from this nitpicking, you have completely missed the entire point of my argument throughout this thread.
I'm asserting that you (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when you exaggerate every single failing of Obama's while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Let me repeat that:
You (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when openly attack Obama while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Sorry for the repetition, but I can only question your reading comprehension when you futilely attempt to counter my assertion by:
-accusing me of blaming everything on Bush (I haven't, and that isn't my point)
-making excuses for Bush's failings (which actually makes my point for me)
How can we have a reasoned discussion when your only counter arguments are to attack a point I am NOT making, and angrily PROVING the point I am making.
This is fast sounding like one of your many "Missile Defense Shield" threads... threads I have deliberately avoided posting in because as a trained physicist, taking on THAT much delusional misunderstood pseudo-science at once would probably make my head explode.
The Luke
-
thats what I said, i didnot blame bush for the most of it, but for the fema trailers and the $$$ they spent afterwards on bums who used it for hookers and liquor.
The prez has a responsibility to realize when state and local support isn't there, and to act, to save american lives, when there's a natural disaster.
Aside from the incompetence and failure to act, much of the local infrastructure was decimated to a point where NOLA cops were too bust guarding their own homes or abandoning their posts to loot Walmarts to keep any law and order.
His response time was very poor. his praising FEMA director for this response was terrible move. He turned away ships of supplies from foreign govts who offered to deliver it - then didn't deliver any of his own!
I have a feeling, if given that same mess, Obama will have a better response, if only to one-up Bush. So far, he's shown good and bad moves, but no fear to make major changes. bush didn't rock the boat that much. Obama's taking on big oil and paying to keep print media alive. Big moves.
-
Okay dude... you actually asked for it this time.
Consider if you will the stupidity of your previous post.
Maybe you might appreciate it better if we reversed the order of arguments:
...you actually provided not one, but two examples of Bush pushing unpopular legislation through the Congress and Senate only one line AFTER you made the following assertion:
So which is it?
Bush pushed through unpopular budgets; unpopular legislation; two wars; torture; evisceration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... but he just couldn't address the unprecedented housing bubble because Congress wouldn't let him?
That's plain apologetic reasoning, the very thing I have been accusing you of. You are actually providing examples of your faulty ideologically blinkered arguments to counter the claim that your argument is faulty and ideologically blinkered...? WTF?
Dude you simply don't understand.
Aside from this nitpicking, you have completely missed the entire point of my argument throughout this thread.
I'm asserting that you (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when you exaggerate every single failing of Obama's while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Let me repeat that:
You (and your ilk) behave in an intellectually dishonest manner when openly attack Obama while simultaneously remaining ideologically blinkered to the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration.
Sorry for the repetition, but I can only question your reading comprehension when you futilely attempt to counter my assertion by:
-accusing me of blaming everything on Bush (I haven't, and that isn't my point)
-making excuses for Bush's failings (which actually makes my point for me)
How can we have a reasoned discussion when your only counter arguments are to attack a point I am NOT making, and angrily PROVING the point I am making.
This is fast sounding like one of your many "Missile Defense Shield" threads... threads I have deliberately avoided posting in because as a trained physicist, taking on THAT much delusional misunderstood pseudo-science at once would probably make my head explode.
The Luke
George Bush got bi-partisan support for the things he did and those things were unpopular only after things went bad. So re-read your history book fool.
As far as budgets go, the dems wanted him to spend more! In fact, the dems only were happy with Bush when he expandaded govt, and yes, Bush was a fiscal spendthrift.
Again, you make these silly arguments that bush single handidly did all of this all while ignoring the role of the congress and others. Fine, if that makes you feel better, fine.
BTW - re=read your original post. You did blame him single handidly for everything.
Bush was a failure of a president, i agree with you and dont know why you attribute things to me i never said, but your ignoring the role of the congress in the things you complain about it just either dishonesty or ignorance on your part.
-
The original patriot act passed 98-1 in the senate and by a large margin in the house.
So you were wrong on that Luke.
-
Bush was a failure of a president, i agree with you and dont know why you attribute things to me i never said, but your ignoring the role of the congress in the things you complain about it just either dishonesty or ignorance on your part.
...finally.
That's my point right there.
It took you two pages of consistent challenging to get you to admit that, but even then you still have to clarify it by apportioning blame to the Congress (and Senate).
That's my point... you have to be bulled with fact after fact just to stop your incessant apologising for George Dubya Bush. Yet you need no prompting whatsoever to misconstrue every single action of Obama's as the end of western civilization.
Obama wants to talk to schoolchildren... a dozen hysterical 333386 threads.
Bush assumes dictatorial powers... excuse after excuse after excuse.
Consistency.
Lack of consistency is the Achilles' Heel of the right wing.
You (arguably) have a viewpoint, but formalise it as yet another hypocritical inconsistent quasi-religious dogma... simply put, you lack the courage of your brainwashed convictions.
The Luke
-
...finally.
That's my point right there.
It took you two pages of consistent challenging to get you to admit that, but even then you still have to clarify it by apportioning blame to the Congress (and Senate).
That's my point... you have to be bulled with fact after fact just to stop your incessant apologising for George Dubya Bush. Yet you need no prompting whatsoever to misconstrue every single action of Obama's as the end of western civilization.
Obama wants to talk to schoolchildren... a dozen hysterical 333386 threads.
Bush assumes dictatorial powers... excuse after excuse after excuse.
Consistency.
Lack of consistency is the Achilles' Heel of the right wing.
You (arguably) have a viewpoint, but formalise it as yet another hypocritical inconsistent quasi-religious dogma... simply put, you lack the courage of your brainwashed convictions.
The Luke
I dont know who you are mistaking me with but i have bashed Bush over many many issues. maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I have not defended Bush, I have said that he alone is not to blame for the many things YOU YOURSELF POSTED. If you take my correcting your mistakes of fact as defending bush thats your perogative.
I used your list, not mine and you try to turn it into something else when I showed you how over half your list was utter nonsense.
-
I dont know who you are mistaking me with but i have bashed Bush over many many issues. maybe you are confusing me with someone else.
...Maybe I'm confusing you with the guy who started this thread and then spent several pages idiotically arguing that the Geneva Convention; War Crimes Conventions; International Declaration of Human Rights; American Civil Law; American Military Law; and International War Crimes Tribunal don't apply to people whom George Dubya Bush declares to be "terrorists".
Thats hardly "bashing" Bush... that's unquestioningly accepting an ignorant Jeebus-Freak country club drunk as your own personal totalitarian dictator.
Judging by the vitriol you spout regarding Obama, any morally-consistent patriot such as yourself, must have been absoltely apoplectic about the Bush administration.
How could I (and the rest of GetBig) have missed that?
I don't remember thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush threads filling the Politics Board in proper objective proportion to the dozens of hysterical anti-Obama theads you pollute the board with now.
Get my point?... you are ideologically blinkered; partisan and irrationally myopic to the point of chroic self-delusion.
The Luke
-
...Maybe I'm confusing you with the guy who started this thread and then spent several pages idiotically arguing that the Geneva Convention; War Crimes Conventions; International Declaration of Human Rights; American Civil Law; American Military Law; and International War Crimes Tribunal don't apply to people whom George Dubya Bush declares to be "terrorists".
Thats hardly "bashing" Bush... that's unquestioningly accepting an ignorant Jeebus-Freak country club drunk as your own personal totalitarian dictator.
Judging by the vitriol you spout regarding Obama, any morally-consistent patriot such as yourself, must have been absoltely apoplectic about the Bush administration.
How could I (and the rest of GetBig) have missed that?
I don't remember thousands upon thousands of anti-Bush threads filling the Politics Board in proper objective proportion to the dozens of hysterical anti-Obama theads you pollute the board with now.
Get my point?... you are ideologically blinkered; partisan and irrationally myopic to the point of chroic self-delusion.
The Luke
Maybe you missed it because I was not signed up at getbig back then jackass.
-
Maybe you missed it because I was not signed up at getbig back then jackass.
...you only joined GetBig AFTER Obama's innauguration?
The Luke
-
...you only joined GetBig AFTER Obama's innauguration?
The Luke
No, I dont remember the date but I had grave misgivings over Bush since 2004. I have listed my issues with Bush many many times.
He was a disaster financially, especially with TARP at the end. I disagreed with his spending and recklessness on immigration, CFR, harriet meirs, the iraq wars' prosecution, the pandering to his texas buddies, the Katrina money afterwards with the trailers etc. There are many many areas i had huge problems with.
-
No, I dont remember the date but I had grave misgivings over Bush since 2004. I have listed my issues with Bush many many times.
...well you didn't protest anywhere near as much about Bush as you have been regarding Obama.
Surely, if you had any consistency to your viewpoint then your three (is it three?) hysterical misinformed rants about Obama scrapping the supposed "Missile Defence Shield" must have been propotionately balanced by hundreds of threads denouncing every egregious step in the legalisation of torture by the Bush administration?
Right?
Those hundreds of threads exist right? Or at least there are many dozens of such threads, right?
It's not as if you are simple-minded misinformed idealogue, right?
Every sane person reading your posts is coming to the wrong conclusion, right?
Forgive me if I politely conclude that you are full of shit when you have been defending institutionalised toture in this very thread.
Why must you defend Bush? Is it because he is a Evangelical Christian, or because he is dumb-as-a-rock?
I don't know if you are a fellow Evangelical Christian, but I do know...
The Luke
-
...well you didn't protest anywhere near as much about Bush as you have been regarding Obama.
Surely, if you had any consistency to your viewpoint then your three (is it three?) hysterical misinformed rants about Obama scrapping the supposed "Missile Defence Shield" must have been propotionately balanced by hundreds of threads denouncing every egregious step in the legalisation of torture by the Bush administration?
Right?
Those hundreds of threads exist right? Or at least there are many dozens of such threads, right?
It's not as if you are simple-minded misinformed idealogue, right?
Every sane person reading your posts is coming to the wrong conclusion, right?
Forgive me if I politely conclude that you are full of shit when you have been defending institutionalised toture in this very thread.
Why must you defend Bush? Is it because he is a Evangelical Christian, or because he is dumb-as-a-rock?
I don't know if you are a fellow Evangelical Christian, but I do know...
The Luke
Unreal. You posted a litany of items you blamed GWB for that myself and others proved was false and maybe contained grains of truth. We pointed out your numerous factual mistakes line by line. Yet, somehow you consider others pointing out YOUR FALSE ASSERTIONS as defending GWB? Nice try. Better luck next time.
Your problem The Luke is that you think you are supremely informed on these issues when in fact the opposite is true. When anyone points out your errors and false assertions you get upset and go off into trying to play amateur psychiatrist in order to cover your mistakes.
As far as not "protesting Bush" as much, like i said, I was not here back then, but was thrown off of FR in 2005 for said "protests" and have written many letters to my reps protesting actions by the admn.
So eat shit potato boy.
-
Unreal. You posted a litany of items you blamed GWB for that myself and others proved was false and maybe contained grains of truth. We pointed out your numerous factual mistakes line by line. Yet, somehow you consider others pointing out YOUR FALSE ASSERTIONS as defending GWB? Nice try. Better luck next time.
...what thread have you been reading?
The Luke
-
...what thread have you been reading?
The Luke
This one. I pointed out at least three factual mistakes you made in your litany of items against Bush. At least blame the man things he actually did.
1. You were wrong about Bush "deregulating" the banks concerning the CDO situation since the repeal of Glass Steagal did that.
2. You were wrong about the election of 2004. You have no proof or basis to make that allegation.
3. You were wrong about the admn "passing legislation". The admn does not pass legislation, the congress does.
4. You were wrong about push pushing "unpopular legislation". The Patriot Act passed in the Senate 98-1. The Iraq War passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. So how unpopular was that as you claim?
5. You were wrong about Bush hating black people. He had more blacks in his cabinet than any previous admn. and probably had more than even Obama has now. I have to check.
6. You ignored the role of the local response in Katrina and ignored the fact that everyone was warned a week in advance to leave. Did you even look at the picture I posted with the busses? Do you know why they were not used? Look it up.
On other points you were correct and I wont disagree with you, but at least get your facts right.
-
...what thread have you been reading?
The Luke
You said Bush pushed through "unpopular legislation". I'm trying to figure out which major bills did he push that were so unpopular as you say.
1. Patriot Act - 98-1 in the Senate
2. Iraq War - 77-23 or something like that.
3. No Child Left Behind - 87-10 in favor
4. Prescription Drug Bill - 54-44 (Senators crossed parties to vote for this)
5. Tax Cuts - 54 - 44 (Mostly party line vote)
6. Budgets??? Bush never vetoed one Budget and they wanted him to spend more! (He was reckless, but they all were)
7. Renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006? 89 Senators voted in favor of that!
Like I said, just get your facts right before throwing insults around at people.
-
like i said at the beginning luke you posted a lot of half truths
-
like i said at the beginning luke you posted a lot of half truths
With regard to Katrina - The Luke again is wrong.
________________________ ________________________ _________
Katrina One Year Later: Myths Still Prevail
It has been one year after the largely ineffectual response to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Despite the failures on all levels of government, it seems that history shows that Bush bears the full brunt of the blame for the failures. While Bush and FEMA do bear some blame for the aftermath, there are many failures that most go noticed if they are to be rectified. It may be politically helpful to pick a favorite scapegoat for political gain, however, lives are lost if all the lessons aren’t learned. After action reports have been discarded for political talking points.
First, the United States is a grouping of 50 sovereign states. The president has no authority, absolutely none, to tell a governor what to do with their own resources. Governors cannot be selected by the President, they are not accountable to the President, and most importantly, they cannot be removed by the President. It may be simple to say “The buck stops at the top” but it reflects a sad lack of understanding of the US governmental system. Bush is responsible for some aspects of the aftermath, but Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin bear a good chunk of the blame themselves. They were elected to be sole stewards of their governmental assets and they utterly failed their constituents.
Second, it is important to note that the disaster plan was written by the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans alone. It was their plan. They are responsible with what their governments do leading up to a disaster, it was their responsibility to be prepared to deal with a disaster as much as possible, and it was their responsibility alone to deal with evacuation. FEMA responds after a disaster strikes; it is the local and state governments which must take action to mitigate the potential damage.
Third, the failure to call for an evacuation until virtually the last effective moment only maximized the number of people in harms way. Mississippi managed to handle the disaster effectively with minimal loss of life. Florida did as well. All the tales of horror came from Louisiana, and in particular, New Orleans. This was largely because those officials did not call for an evacuation. In fact, the President got on the phone to ask them to evacuate when it was clear they weren’t doing so. An extra 24 to 48 hours would have been more than enough to evacuate every man, woman, and child from the New Orleans area.
Fourth, the decision to leave fleets of unattended school buses in parking lots to get destroyed was a critical failure of Mayor Nagin. There were enough buses to evacuate every single person without their own transportation from New Orleans. The fact the buses went unused and the images of buses floating in the Mayor Ray Nagin memorial parking lots should serve as a testament of local government failure spearheaded by Mayor Ray “School Bus” Nagin.
Fifth, when disaster struck, Governor Blanco simply could not lead. Not only did she get on national TV and cry, she simply was unable to make decisions. The state government and disaster planners looked to her for leadership as the head executive of the state of Louisiana and she failed them. When 9/11 struck, there was no doubt that Rudy Giuliani was firmly in charge. When Katrina struck, no one knew who was in charge because the local and state government fell apart.
Sixth, when Katrina struck from one to two-thirds of the New Orleans Police Department simply walked off the job. For their efforts, they were given free family vacations to Vegas and are portrayed on billboards as symbols of courage. In the military, of a soldier walks off the job during war in a forward area, they can be summarily executed. In New Orleans, they get rewarded.
Seventh, patients were summarily executed by medical professionals. This was called “euthanasia” by the press and the medical community, however, they were not killed for being terminal, they were killed because the conditions of the storm made them “too difficult” to care for. They were killed because they were too high maintenance.
Eighth, everyone remembers the stories of carnage and rioting in New Orleans that permeated the media. When those stories turned out to be, at best, exaggerations, the organ most responsible for spreading the deceptions, the media, has not taken accountability. It is unknown how many lives were lost simply because the media’s stories of Armageddon had scared off people from helping. The media needs to thoroughly examine how it gets news and how it presents news. The media is known for sensationalizing stories to produce fear or anger in their audiences. This needs to be addressed.
Ninth, Louisiana and New Orleans have a long and “distinguished” history of corruption and embezzling funds. In fact, before Katrina federal officials were trying to find out were millions of dollars “disappeared” to when sent to Louisiana for homeland security and disaster preparedness. Since Katrina, $77 billion has been spent or is available, yet only one-third of hospitals and one-half of schools are actually open. How much of the money the government and aid organizations spent on New Orleans “disappearing”? The population of Louisiana is 4.5 million and New Orleans is 500,000 of that. Should it really cost hundreds of millions to build a city for that few people?
A year has passed after Katrina; if we truly want to prevent such an event from happening again we need to take a look at the failures. All of them.
________________________ ________________________ ________
Like I said, only brain dead idiots blame Bush alone for Katrina.
-
no doubt not only that but they overlook all the federal help that got after the fact shit again I live in houston alot of NO residents got bused here and were given federal aid...
many of whom squandered and found ways to rip off the govt of more money leaching off their fellow victims...
to give you an idea of what kind of ppl we are talking about here
our murder rate jumped 25+% the year following katrina from the previous year
our crime rate jumped something like 300% the year following katrina from the previous year...
-
no doubt not only that but they overlook all the federal help that got after the fact shit again I live in houston alot of NO residents got bused here and were given federal aid...
many of whom squandered and found ways to rip off the govt of more money leaching off their fellow victims...
to give you an idea of what kind of ppl we are talking about here
our murder rate jumped 25+% the year following katrina from the previous year
our crime rate jumped something like 300% the year following katrina from the previous year...
Many of those leeches stayed in N.O. so that they could loot the joint, including the cops! Remember this clip:
-
1. You were wrong about Bush "deregulating" the banks concerning the CDO situation since the repeal of Glass Steagal did that.
...I never argued that Bush repealed Glass-Steagal. I argued that he did nothing to reign in rampant speculation, in fact he further deregulated the exotic financial products and derivatives markets. That's a fact, and not open to debate.
You aren't seriously arguing that Bush did something constructive to head-off this financial collapse?
Again, attacking me over a point I did NOT make does not make your argument for you, but this constant apologist drivel on Bush's behalf DOES make my point.
2. You were wrong about the election of 2004. You have no proof or basis to make that allegation.
...I think we'll have to let history decide this one.
3. You were wrong about the admn "passing legislation". The admn does not pass legislation, the congress does.
...hair splitting. The White House drew up all the most egregious legislation.
4. You were wrong about push pushing "unpopular legislation". The Patriot Act passed in the Senate 98-1. The Iraq War passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. So how unpopular was that as you claim?
...again, this doesn't make YOUR point, it makes my point for me. You can't claim Bush couldn't reign in the financial markets due to a lack of support, when he managed to pass every shitty un-American law he put forward.
5. You were wrong about Bush hating black people. He had more blacks in his cabinet than any previous admn. and probably had more than even Obama has now. I have to check.
Are you seriously arguing that black people as a whole are BETTER off after eight years of Bush than they were before?
He may have had lots of brown faces in his cabinet, but he was simultaneously ordering the systematic torture of hundreds of other brown people.
Did Bush torture any white people? Even one?
6. You ignored the role of the local response in Katrina and ignored the fact that everyone was warned a week in advance to leave. Did you even look at the picture I posted with the busses? Do you know why they were not used? Look it up.
Are you seriously arguing that Bush did not "fail" the people of New Orleans? (which is all I argued) Even after Bush himself admitted such?
Again, attacking me over a point I did NOT make does not make your argument for you, but this constant apologist drivel on Bush's behalf DOES make my point.
You said Bush pushed through "unpopular legislation". I'm trying to figure out which major bills did he push that were so unpopular as you say.
1. Patriot Act - 98-1 in the Senate
2. Iraq War - 77-23 or something like that.
3. No Child Left Behind - 87-10 in favor
4. Prescription Drug Bill - 54-44 (Senators crossed parties to vote for this)
5. Tax Cuts - 54 - 44 (Mostly party line vote)
6. Budgets??? Bush never vetoed one Budget and they wanted him to spend more! (He was reckless, but they all were)
7. Renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006? 89 Senators voted in favor of that!
...none of the legislation you cited had majority support among the people: so by definition it was unpopular; ie contrary to the wishes of the populace.
Seriously dude,
I respect your right to have an opinion, but such a poorly formed opinion shouldn't be held so tightly, nor shouted so loudly.
You counter my charge that you unfairly attack the Obama administration while continuously apologising for the Bush administration, by posting reams of apologies for the Bush administration!?! This is the unconscious Pavlovian reaction of a brainwashed simpleton. Think about what you are defending: the worst president in the history of the United States.
How can we debate this when you are making my point for me, while insisting my point is invalid?
You will never have any credibility on this or any other board if you insist upon this blinkered ideological favoritism. It's intellectually dishonest to the point of self-delusion.
Conservative Republicanism is a political ideology.... not a religion. Take the halo off that country club drunk.
The Luke
-
...I never argued that Bush repealed Glass-Steagal. I argued that he did nothing to reign in rampant speculation, in fact he further deregulated the exotic financial products and derivatives markets. That's a fact, and not open to debate.
You aren't seriously arguing that Bush did something constructive to head-off this financial collapse?
Again, attacking me over a point I did NOT make does not make your argument for you, but this constant apologist drivel on Bush's behalf DOES make my point.
...I think we'll have to let history decide this one.
...hair splitting. The White House drew up all the most egregious legislation.
...again, this doesn't make YOUR point, it makes my point for me. You can't claim Bush couldn't reign in the financial markets due to a lack of support, when he managed to pass every shitty un-American law he put forward.
Are you seriously arguing that black people as a whole are BETTER off after eight years of Bush than they were before?
He may have had lots of brown faces in his cabinet, but he was simultaneously ordering the systematic torture of hundreds of other brown people.
Did Bush torture any white people? Even one?
Are you seriously arguing that Bush did not "fail" the people of New Orleans? (which is all I argued) Even after Bush himself admitted such?
Again, attacking me over a point I did NOT make does not make your argument for you, but this constant apologist drivel on Bush's behalf DOES make my point.
...none of the legislation you cited had majority support among the people: so by definition it was unpopular; ie contrary to the wishes of the populace.
Seriously dude,
I respect your right to have an opinion, but such a poorly formed opinion shouldn't be held so tightly, nor shouted so loudly.
You counter my charge that you unfairly attack the Obama administration while continuously apologising for the Bush administration, by posting reams of apologies for the Bush administration!?! This is the unconscious Pavlovian reaction of a brainwashed simpleton. Think about what you are defending: the worst president in the history of the United States.
How can we debate this when you are making my point for me, while insisting my point is invalid?
You will never have any credibility on this or any other board if you insist upon this blinkered ideological favoritism. It's intellectually dishonest to the point of self-delusion.
Conservative Republicanism is a political ideology.... not a religion. Take the halo off that country club drunk.
The Luke
You are seriously drinking way too much Guiness Stout. Your post is nothing but backtracking on every point I made which debunked your nonsense almost line by line. Sure you were correct on some, but most was just speculative nonsense that is taken out of proper contaxt in order to attempt to make political point on your part.
No amount of flowery language on your part can mask your gross misunderstanding of many of the issues you yourself brought up.
BTW - with regard to CDOs you wrote the Bush:
"deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?"
Where is your factual support for that?
-
BTW - with regard to CDOs you wrote the Bush:
"deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?"
Where is your factual support for that?
...the fact that he did?
You keep filtering everything I write along ideological lines... I make a point, you misconstrue the point and attack some erroneous extraneous tangential point I didn't make and conflate this faulty logic into a rebuttal.
If I say Bush failed the people of New Orleans, pointing out the complicit failings of others does NOT diminish or invalidate my point. A point Bush admitted himself.
If I say Bush pushed through unpopular legislation, pointing out the complicit actions of the Congress/Senate does NOT infer that legislation is somehow popular.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, this is basic logic.
If I make a point, you should counter THAT point... not attack a different point, then attempt to invalidate both by conflating them.
Where does this line of argument lead...? Will you eventually win the debate by calling me French?
Is this perhaps simply a reading comprehension problem? If English is your second language, maybe you should read and re-read my posts watching the clauses carefully... or perhaps just ask for clarification/explanation of any point you don't fully understand?
The Luke
-
...the fact that he did?
You keep filtering everything I write along ideological lines... I make a point, you misconstrue the point and attack some erroneous extraneous tangential point I didn't make and conflate this faulty logic into a rebuttal.
If I say Bush failed the people of New Orleans, pointing out the complicit failings of others does NOT diminish or invalidate my point. A point Bush admitted himself.
If I say Bush pushed through unpopular legislation, pointing out the complicit actions of the Congress/Senate does NOT infer that legislation is somehow popular.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, this is basic logic.
If I make a point, you should counter THAT point... not attack a different point, then attempt to invalidate both by conflating them.
Where does this line of argument lead...? Will you eventually win the debate by calling me French?
Is this perhaps simply a reading comprehension problem? If English is your second language, maybe you should read and re-read my posts watching the clauses carefully... or perhaps just ask for clarification/explanation of any point you don't fully understand?
The Luke
Hey jerkoff - the fact that you make allegations you cant back up with fact is not my problem, its yours. It makes you look like the fool, not me. I debunked most of your bullet points with facts and you turn all sour because your little diatribe got destroyed. Tough shit. Deal with it.
Like i said, no amount of pompous language on your part can mask your ignorance on the issues YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP!
you made a series of allegations that you claim to be true. I'm asking you to back them up. You cant because you are guilty of everything you accuse others of but are to convinced of your own genius to see how foolish you really are.
Again, FOR THE SECOND TIME, you stated as follows with regard to Bush:
"deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments"
Where is your proof for that? If you dont have any, STFU with your lengthy posts that contain nothing but half truths, distortions, warped interpretations of events, and a fundamental misunderstand of how laws are made and pssed in this country.
-
Again, FOR THE SECOND TIME, you stated as follows with regard to Bush:
"deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments"
...do you think Bush tightened regulations on derivatives?
The Luke
-
...do you think Bush tightened regulations on derivatives?
The Luke
Game over fag.
You lost - deal with it.
-
Ur arguing with a lawyer...
Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]
-
...the fact that he did?
You keep filtering everything I write along ideological lines... I make a point, you misconstrue the point and attack some erroneous extraneous tangential point I didn't make and conflate this faulty logic into a rebuttal.
If I say Bush failed the people of New Orleans, pointing out the complicit failings of others does NOT diminish or invalidate my point. A point Bush admitted himself.
If I say Bush pushed through unpopular legislation, pointing out the complicit actions of the Congress/Senate does NOT infer that legislation is somehow popular.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, this is basic logic.
If I make a point, you should counter THAT point... not attack a different point, then attempt to invalidate both by conflating them.
Where does this line of argument lead...? Will you eventually win the debate by calling me French?
Is this perhaps simply a reading comprehension problem? If English is your second language, maybe you should read and re-read my posts watching the clauses carefully... or perhaps just ask for clarification/explanation of any point you don't fully understand?
The Luke
This is unfair. ;D
-
This is unfair. ;D
Go back to bed soldier boy.
-
...do you think Bush tightened regulations on derivatives?
The Luke
Nice way to try to CYA after you lost the argument. Your question is a blatant attempt to distract away from the lack of factual support for your original allegation that Bush "deregulated CDO's and other exotic financial instruments."
-
This is unfair. ;D
(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll75/TexasRevolutionary/Troll/AssholeBadge.jpg)
-
I dont mind going back and forth with Luke because he will actually debate an issue.
Mons is just a stalker and sick demented freak who made up a war record.
-
I dont mind going back and forth with Luke because he will actually debate an issue.
Mons is just a stalker and sick demented freak who made up a war record.
What branch did you serve 333's?
-
hows business..3333... ;D
I already know the answer bro...It's great... I'm sure you earned $15,000 for ten seconds of work...typical day at the office... ;)
-
hows business..3333... ;D
I already know the answer bro...It's great... I'm sure you earned $15,000 for ten seconds of work...typical day at the office... ;)
Actually - tommorow im picking up a check for 10g's on a deal I have been working a few months.
I made $500.00 for literally ten minutes work about a half hour ago from a deadbeat Veternarian who did not pay the medical equipment repair company for work they did.
I made $1,200 today on 6 liens I did for a plumbing client.
So things are rolling. Thanks for asking.
-
Okay, this might seem mean, but it's a good example of the poor reading comprehension I was referring to:
Observe the tactic in practice:
Again, FOR THE SECOND TIME, you stated as follows with regard to Bush:
"deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments"
...I never did any such thing. Not once, and certainly not twice.
What I actually did was ask the question:
...which administration:
...
-deregulated CDOs, CDSs and a host of other exotic financial instruments?
...
That's a question, not a statement... 333386 has inferred not only a statement where none exists, he has even attributed an answer to the question where none existed.
My original statement was actually part of a series of questions that highlighted the many government failures which lead to the current crisis situation... some of them the fault of the George Bush Senior administration... some of them the fault of the Clinton administration... some (most) of them the fault of George Dubya Bush.
The point was that NONE of these mistakes were the fault of the Obama administration (which 333386 bewails incessantly).
Read the post yourself, it's on page one of this thread and was quoted in its entirety by both Mons Venus and tonymctones (I didn't modify or edit it).
But 333386 can't read a post like that in an objective way... he snaps immediately into defensive mode once he PERCEIVES an attack upon George Dubya.
His defensive reactionary thinking leads him to lash out... and once he has conflated a genuine point with an imaginary one he attacks as if he has somehow invalidated the real argument made:
Game over fag.
You lost - deal with it.
How can such a person have any credibility whatsoever?
He's demanding evidence for an erroneous statement HE made... he merely based it upon what he THINKS I wrote. Now he's been caught doing it, but continues his attack completely unaware of his misunderstanding. That's either dishonest, or evidence of very poor reading comprehension.
What's wrong with this guy? Is he related to Dubya or in love with him or something?
The Luke
-
What branch did you serve 333's?
Why don't you show the post where he said he served, oh thats right there isn't one.
(https://www.thatswicked.com.au/estore/images/dickhead.jpg)
-
Okay, this might seem mean, but it's a good example of the poor reading comprehension I was referring to:
Observe the tactic in practice:
...I never did any such thing. Not once, and certainly not twice.
What I actually did was ask the question:
That's a question, not a statement... 333386 has inferred not only a statement where none exists, he has even attributed an answer to the question where none existed.
My original statement was actually part of a series of questions that highlighted the many government failures which lead to the current crisis situation... some of them the fault of the George Bush Senior administration... some of them the fault of the Clinton administration... some (most) of them the fault of George Dubya Bush.
The point was that NONE of these mistakes were the fault of the Obama administration (which 333386 bewails incessantly).
Read the post yourself, it's on page one of this thread and was quoted in its entirety by both Mons Venus and tonymctones (I didn't modify or edit it).
But 333386 can't read a post like that in an objective way... he snaps immediately into defensive mode once he PERCEIVES an attack upon George Dubya.
His defensive reactionary thinking leads him to lash out... and once he has conflated a genuine point with an imaginary one he attacks as if he has somehow invalidated the real argument made:
How can such a person have any credibility whatsoever?
He's demanding evidence for an erroneous statement HE made... he merely based it upon what he THINKS I wrote. Now he's been caught doing it, but continues his attack completely unaware of his misunderstanding. That's either dishonest, or evidence of very poor reading comprehension.
What's wrong with this guy? Is he related to Dubya or in love with him or something?
The Luke
So now you are trying to say that your diatribe was about both Bush and Clinton? Nice try at covering up your ignorance which has been on display all too well in this thread. Your entire attack on me is that you claim I was a bushbot and supported everything he did. You then listed a bunch of nonsense that Bush allegedly did, and now that your list has been torn to shreds, you want me to believe you were referring to Clinton as well?
You want to play word games fine, but we both know where you dont want to argue - and thats the facts. You do it in every single thread. You play word games with people but never have any factual underpinnings to your arguments.
Keep jerking off to your perceived brilliance of yourself, maybe you actually believe it. Kazan, Tony, others, see right through your fluffy b.s. for what it is. All words, no substance whatsoever.
-
I have noticed a trend with these types in regards to ignorant elementary school style attacks in the form of name calling...
Game over fag.
You lost - deal with it.
dip shit go stand in the corner grown ups are talking...
typical really...along with the poor reading comprehension.
-
I have noticed a trend with these types in regards to ignorant elementary school style attacks in the form of name calling...
typical really...along with the poor reading comprehension.
Cant we have fun while arguing these things?
-
So now you are trying to say that your diatribe was about both Bush and Clinton?
...eh, it was about Bush Senior; Clinton; Bush Junior and Reagan too. Pretty obvious references. Most of it things any well read person would know... that's why I didn't have to explicitly name them, it was obvious to everyone, maybe not you, but certainly everyone who's read a newspaper in the past 20 years.
None of it was about Obama... that was the point.
I even addressed your confusion regarding the Glass-Steagall Act (in detail). Did you forget that already?
You then listed a bunch of nonsense that Bush allegedly did, and now that your list has been torn to shreds, you want me to believe you were referring to Clinton as well?
I did no such thing. That's TWO outright fabrications of YOURS that I am being called to account for.
...you're just so hypersensitive to criticism of Bush that you infer such criticism where none is implied.
You ASSUMED everything I posted was a reference to George Dubya, just because some of it was... that's not my fault. You are responsible for your own poor reading comprehension.
This AGAIN makes my point for me... you are a Bush apologist: chronically and irrationally anti-Obama while simultaneously hypersensitive to criticism of Bush.
The Luke
-
...eh, it was about Bush Senior; Clinton; Bush Junior and Reagan too. Pretty obvious references. Most of it things any well read person would know... that's why I didn't have to explicitly name them, it was obvious to everyone, maybe not you, but certainly everyone who's read a newspaper in the past 20 years.
None of it was about Obama... that was the point.
I even addressed your confusion regarding the Glass-Steagall Act (in detail). Did you forget that already?
I did no such thing. That's TWO outright fabrications of YOURS that I am being called to account for.
...you're just so hypersensitive to criticism of Bush that you infer such criticism where none is implied.
You ASSUMED everything I posted was a reference to George Dubya, just because some of it was... that's not my fault. You are responsible for your own poor reading comprehension.
This AGAIN makes my point for me... you are a Bush apologist: chronically and irrationally anti-Obama while simultaneously hypersensitive to criticism of Bush.
The Luke
Funny considering I explained to you I was thrown off of FR in 2005 for Bashing Bush. Regardless, I am done playing word games with you. You think you proved your point, I think I proved mine.
On a different note, this was the guy I was kind a friendly with in college. One of the nicest guys from Ireland I met.
-
Cant we have fun while arguing these things?
You're getting the shiit kicked out of you. ;D
-
You're getting the shiit kicked out of you. ;D
I will discuss things with Luke since he will respond.
You are just a stalker who made up a war record.
-
I will discuss things with Luke since he will respond.
You are just a stalker who made up a war record.
I'll ask again, which branch did YOU serve?
-
I'll ask again, which branch did YOU serve?
I never claimed to have served.
You claimed to have fought in Panama and Gulf War 1 yet have refused to give HH6 your company and Batallion info since you know he can verify your info.
-
I will discuss things with Luke since he will respond.
You are just a stalker who made up a war record.
Why don't we both post pictures in Uniform?
-
Why don't we both post pictures in Uniform?
No we just want verifiable information, anyone can go down to the local Army surplus store and pick up a set of BDU's
-
Why don't we both post pictures in Uniform?
Company & Battalion info Mons. Its very easy.
-
Company & Battalion info Mons. Its very easy.
You never served? FUCK OFF child.
-
You never served? FUCK OFF child.
And neither did you. Company & Battalion info?
What did you get caught with a teenage boy while you were in Panama or something and cant post your info?
-
And neither did you. Company & Battalion info?
What did you get caught with a teenage boy while you were in Panama or something and cant post your info?
Mon's getting owned again....as usual...
-
You never served? FUCK OFF child.
HH6 has asked you for the same information. If you dont want to answer me, fine, why then dont you answer him since he is in the military?
-
What's all this bullshit about who served where and when, or maybe didn't?
At least throw in some sort of declaration that you can't argue or counter the points being made first... BEFORE this descends into a "We lost the debate, but yo' momma so fat...".
Something along the lines of:
"Having been forced to question the merits of my own argument, I have found it sadly lacking and so intend to proceed with purely personal attacks unrelated to the topic being discussed".
Help the rest of us follow who is opting out.
The Luke
-
What's all this bullshit about who served where and when, or maybe didn't?
At least throw in some sort of declaration that you can't argue or counter the points being made first... BEFORE this descends into a "We lost the debate, but yo' momma so fat...".
Something along the lines of:
"Having been forced to question the merits of my own argument, I have found it sadly lacking and so intend to proceed with purely personal attacks unrelated to the topic being discussed".
Help the rest of us follow who is opting out.
The Luke
Mons basically stalked HH6 for months like a jilted lover and claimed that he fought in two wars, Panama and Gulf War 1. HH6 and others have asked Mons for some type of verification of these claims.
To date, Mons refuses to provide his company and battalion info for HH6 to verify, especially considering that Mons said he wishes us soldiers to be blown up by ied explosive devices.
-
Mons basically stalked HH6 for months like a jilted lover and claimed that he fought in two wars, Panama and Gulf War 1. HH6 and others have asked Mons for some type of verification of these claims.
To date, Mons refuses to provide his company and battalion info for HH6 to verify, especially considering that Mons said he wishes us soldiers to be blown up by ied explosive devices.
...Jeebus Hussein Christ.
Don't any of you have the intelligence or courage to be conscientious objectors?
The Luke
-
...Jeebus Hussein Christ.
Don't any of you have the intelligence or courage to be conscientious objectors?
The Luke
What does that have to do with anything?
We just asked mons to verify his claims of being a combat vet with something HH6 could verify.
-
Look dude without beating u over the head with a bat with past history, we kinda take "stolen valor" shit in this country kinda seriously. U guys can debate this IRS fines shit all u want but Mons is a piece of shit and knows the minute he nails down his unit..I'll either have verified his record or he'll be found out. He's already backed himself into a corner with Panama and his claim to have served at Benning...then he got pissed because I told him a good friend was in his battalion..if he was telling the truth. Oh and Mons I figured out who some of the Bat staff were at the time and a few are still serving so if u can tell me anything...like who ur RI's were, who ur S3 or even ur company cdr was...I'll leave u alone. IF ur not a 3rd Bat guy then ur didn't serve at Benning during the invasion....
Luke he wished guys in iraq to die from IED's...I'm not letting it go.
98% of CO's are cowards.
-
Look dude without beating u over the head with a bat with past history, we kinda take "stolen valor" shit in this country kinda seriously. U guys can debate this IRS fines shit all u want but Mons is a piece of shit and knows the minute he nails down his unit..I'll either have verified his record or he'll be found out. He's already backed himself into a corner with Panama and his claim to have served at Benning...then he got pissed because I told him a good friend was in his battalion..if he was telling the truth. Oh and Mons I figured out who some of the Bat staff were at the time and a few are still serving so if u can tell me anything...like who ur RI's were, who ur S3 or even ur company cdr was...I'll leave u alone. IF ur not a 3rd Bat guy then ur didn't serve at Benning during the invasion....
Luke he wished guys in iraq to die from IED's...I'm not letting it go.
98% of CO's are cowards.
I have a buddy who dies in Iraw by a mortar fired into the green zone and I will not drop it either until this jerkoff is gone or exposed for the phoney he is.
-
People who are former combat vets don't sound like this guy...he doesn't speak the lingo....he misspells easy things like AF bases, says odd things in regards the military. There are alot of guys who are doing this now. And oddly once I pointed out he'd be in his 40's...he started calling us all kid or junior or some other bullshit. He told 3 he's a small business millionaire or some crap.
See Luke...we're not dropping this. I hope Hugo doesn't ban him before we figure out who he is.
-
98% of CO's are cowards.
...couldn't that be countered with an argument that 98% of veterans are murderers?
The Luke
-
People who are former combat vets don't sound like this guy...he doesn't speak the lingo....he misspells easy things like AF bases, says odd things in regards the military. There are alot of guys who are doing this now. And oddly once I pointed out he'd be in his 40's...he started calling us all kid or junior or some other bullshit. He told 3 he's a small business millionaire or some crap.
See Luke...we're not dropping this. I hope Hugo doesn't ban him before we figure out who he is.
Mons started that wierd thread last week about employers with over ten employees and he refused to give his companys' website info or anything to verify that either.
-
...couldn't that be countered with an argument that 98% of veterans are murderers?
The Luke
Not every vet has killed in combat. Next.
-
...couldn't that be countered with an argument that 98% of veterans are murderers?
The Luke
Look shitbag..ur country doesn't matter, u haven't mattered unless u were exporting death to the Brits with ur IRA bullshit. I could care less if ur from the "Republic" or not. Stay on ur sliver of land and keep out of our politics. My cousin Vinny here, crushed u...skip did the same.
-
Look shitbag..ur country doesn't matter, u haven't mattered unless u were exporting death to the Brits with ur IRA bullshit. I could care less if ur from the "Republic" or not. Stay on ur sliver of land and keep out of our politics. My cousin Vinny here, crushed u...skip did the same.
...then why the frustration?
The Luke
-
...Jeebus Hussein Christ.
Don't any of you have the intelligence or courage to be conscientious objectors?
The Luke
hahahahahahha I cant believe i just read that shit hahahahahah
luke were you being serious bro?
-
luke were you being serious bro?
...if eveyone was a conscientious objector... well you can figure out the rest.
Besides, to the best of my knowledge America has never really won a war. So what's the point in dying, or killing third world losers, for multinational corporations profits?
The Luke
-
...if eveyone was a conscientious objector... well you can figure out the rest.
Besides, to the best of my knowledge America has never really won a war. So what's the point in dying, or killing third world losers, for multinational corporations profits?
The Luke
LOL ya youre right weve never won a war ::) the american revolution, mexican american war, WW1, WW2 LOL right ::)
I picture you as a scrawny little bottom boy luke how close is that?
you should just stop now 3333 already made you look pretty foolish and you dont really want to go down this road...
-
LOL ya youre right weve never won a war ::) the american revolution, mexican american war, WW1, WW2 LOL right ::)
...I could put forward my (somewhat controversial) case if you would list all the wars America has been involved in.
Maybe start a new thread, I don't want to hijack this thread.
The Luke
-
...I could put forward my (somewhat controversial) case if you would list all the wars America has been involved in.
Maybe start a new thread, I don't want to hijack this thread.
The Luke
go ahead i think that would be good for a laugh.... ;)
-
...I could put forward my (somewhat controversial) case if you would list all the wars America has been involved in.
Maybe start a new thread, I don't want to hijack this thread.
The Luke
You should have just said you made your own shit up based on your revisionist theories and no one would laugh at you.
BTW - are you related to TA in any way?